Conservatives like to paint this as a black and white issue, i.e. it's wrong to force someone to pay dues to a group they don't support or agree with. Okay, fine. But should they then be able to benefit from the terms of union contracts? If you choose to opt out of the union then why should you be a beneficiary of what the union has accomplished.

As for the political advocacy part of the equation, should a union's role include influencing legislation beneficial to the union or workers in general? If for example Candidate A favors right to work and Candidate B doesn't, isn't it in the best interests of the union and its members to support Candidate B? If legislation is pending that would have a direct impact on the union and it's members, does the union have the right to lobby against that and use union funds to do so?

Bottom line as a compromise I would suggest if you want to opt out of the union then you are responsible for negotiating for yourself, which would really be a trick with a government job given all wages and benefits are approved by committee and various higher ups. Your direct supervisor has no say in any of that. Unions exist to give the employee greater bargaining power by bargaining as a group rather an individual. Dues and the "agency fees" paid by nonmembers go towards that effort.

Preachers like to say Satan's greatest trick is convincing mankind he doesn't exist. I would say the greatest trick corporations and anti-union conservatives have pulled off is convincing workers they're better off on their own without unions.

* * End of the Trail * *

Like to blaze a new Trail?Punch this link
to offer a new thread with your submission.